Well I’m not going to spend my life on this subject but I don’t see anything that you wrote that runs counter to my basic premise that children are born narcissistic -by necessity-and “learn” to be less so-or they don’t. I also understand this may be inconsistent to those who believe that children are born inherently good and become less so through the influence of a corrupt society. (which is what I believe Billy is saying)

Well I’m not going to spend my life on this subject but I don’t see anything that you wrote that runs counter to my basic premise that children are born narcissistic -by necessity-and “learn” to be less so-or they don’t. I also understand this may be inconsistent to those who believe that children are born inherently good and become less so through the influence of a corrupt society. (which is what I believe Billy is saying)

The problem is your “premise” (ie. peconception) is refuted by science.

Children are born as developmental animals who are hard-wired to become empathetic animals as their brains develop. So yeah it’s hard-wired. Like almost all hard-wired human brain things, it can be influenced by a wide range of environmental and social and cultural issues but it’s there.

And a reminder. Chances are great that the majority of the scientists we cite (and we barely scratched the surface) are parents too. So they know all about children firsthand too.

The problem is your “premise” (ie. peconception) is refuted by science.

You guys are making my so called “premise” far more complicated than it actually is.

“Hard wired” or not children need to be taught (parents, peers, education, etc) what they may or may not be “hard wired” to do. They are born not knowing how to access innate traits that separate them from other species. In a word they are not born selfless even though they may have the “capacity” to become so. It is my belief that a child that is taught compassion and empathy for others does not lose that character simply because of a corrupt society and a child that is not taught such character does not acquire it simply because of a more civilized society.

The problem is your “premise” (ie. peconception) is refuted by science.

You guys are making my so called “premise” far more complicated than it actually is.

“Hard wired” or not children need to be taught (parents, peers, education, etc) what they may or may not be “hard wired” to do. They are born not knowing how to access innate traits that separate them from other species. In a word they are not born selfless even though they may have the “capacity” to become so. It is my belief that a child that is taught compassion and empathy for others does not lose that character simply because of a corrupt society and a child that is not taught such character does not acquire it simply because of a more civilized society.

What you seem not to be responding to at all is that whatever infants are in regards to anything, that’s not the human brain you’re seeing. The human brain changes and develops. Meaning, NOT that it is at birth a small version of what it will be later, like a puppy is small dog that just needs time to grow. A brain is incomplete at birth–it is wired to BECOME something different from what it is at first, to add on to what it is.

And the evidence is abundant that children develop deep hard-wired capacities for sympathetic and empathetic responses. Those things are just there. It is wired to do that, that is how it works. It’s not just parents teaching it, it’s there to be cultivated.

So the actual argument (or, mine anyway) is that it does not matter in the least how children are when they are BORN. The evidence–and it’s solid and abundant—is that the brain is developmental, it is not all “there” at birth, and that yes an innate, hard-wired capacity for empathetic and sympathetic responses IS built into its development.

I would even say no psychological approach to people that says “how you are born is what being human is” can work. We’re too radically bio-developmental as a species. Our brains develop. So you can’t just take what’s there at the start and say, that’s what a human person is. It would be like looking at the sprouts of a beautiful lily in early spring and saying “enh that’s not so pretty.” Well, wait. There’s more, it shows up in a process. You don’t see the flowers in the sprouts. If you project the sprouts by themselves, then lillies would just be these empty vertical stalks.

The problem is your “premise” (ie. peconception) is refuted by science.

You guys are making my so called “premise” far more complicated than it actually is.

“Hard wired” or not children need to be taught (parents, peers, education, etc) what they may or may not be “hard wired” to do. They are born not knowing how to access innate traits that separate them from other species. In a word they are not born selfless even though they may have the “capacity” to become so. It is my belief that a child that is taught compassion and empathy for others does not lose that character simply because of a corrupt society and a child that is not taught such character does not acquire it simply because of a more civilized society.

W,

Can you elaborate on the part in bold? First and second reading — for me — it appears you’re saying once a parent teaches X, it’s locked in and stays with that person forever, and their environment, their schooling, the economic system, its words and deeds, or the government and its words and deeds, can’t alter that. So that if you teach your kids compassion and empathy for others, that’s how that child will remain as they grow and develop. They’ll always be that way — even though, of course, while you’re teaching them X, they’re also experiencing Y, Z and myriad other inputs outside the home, etc. etc. . . . not to mention what happens after they leave the nest.

And the second part of that? It strikes me that you’ve imagined this parental teaching as occurring in a vacuum, so that the wider world outside the home has little to no impact, and the child is 100% shaped by parents and only parents. Heaven help us all if this is the case, because there are all kinds of horrible parents in the world, and we have countless examples of children being “saved” by teachers, social workers, the discovery of this or that philosophy, the arts, etc. etc. It also really surprises me that you don’t think it matters if “society” is good, just, fair or rotten. All that matters, apparently, is what the parents do.

If I have your take all wrong, please feel free to correct me. It wouldn’t be the first time.

There’s a difference between being “selfless” and being compassionate or empathetic. No one is saying people are “born selfless.” When we say people are born with innate instincts, drives, capacities, etc. etc. to be compassionate, empathetic, to seek cooperation, to care for others, to want to live in harmony . . . that’s not the same thing as being nothing but “selfless.” There’s always a mix of drives, desires, etc. etc. which are sometimes in conflict.

It’s not either/or.

And, as mentioned in the articles, science tells us humans have an innate sense of “reciprocal altruism.” That’s not entirely “selfless,” which is a pretty unrealistic standard to begin with. We humans share, care for others, show love toward others, empathize with and show compassion toward them knowing — at least on a subconscious level — this makes us feel really good too. This zaps just the right brain centers for us. We receive a great deal in exchange for our demonstrations of love toward other humans, animals, nature, etc.

Humans receive inputs inside and outside the home, obviously. Great, good, indifferent, bad and horrible, and all things in between. We’re impacted by all of it. It makes no sense to me that the inputs we receive at home would win out over everything else, so that the world outside the home doesn’t matter. That it just doesn’t matter if our economic system, for instance, teaches:

A) kill or be killed, compete to survive, dog eat dog

or

B) share knowledge and resources, work together for the common good, work cooperatively instead of competitively.

Fight endlessly over resources or figure out how to distribute them fairly and use them for the common good.

It puzzles me that someone would think it’s irrelevant, as long as life at home is a certain way. Especially if the goal is, in this case, to be compassionate, empathetic, etc. etc.